Corregir simulacro

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that unanswered questions count as incorrect and that each simulacro can be corrected only once, but it does not clarify whether the correction is persisted, what happens on a second attempt, or any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four short sentences with no wasted text. Purpose, return content, scoring rule, and one-time constraint are front-loaded and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully explain return values, and it still summarizes the grade, answer key, and explanations. It covers the main behavioral rules for a two-parameter tool, with the only notable gap being the lack of detail around simulacro_id and error behavior when a simulacro was already corrected.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is exactly 50%: the respuestas parameter is well documented in the schema, while simulacro_id is not. The description adds some meaning by linking simulacro_id to a simulacro produced by generar_simulacro, but it does not add format or validation details beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: correcting a mock exam (simulacro) generated by generar_simulacro. It clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling generator and explains what the result contains, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'generado con generar_simulacro' establishes the prerequisite and routes the agent from the generator sibling to this correction step. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative siblings such as explicar_pregunta, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.